As a prelude to my comments, I should say that I appreciate your
contribution, and do not intend to delay it. I think the reference
to RFC 2505 might fit properly in the history section. My reason for
advocating inclusion is like my reason for supporting the history
section in general: completeness. A little bit of summary can avoid
accusation that something that might be important was ignored.
I suspect that the MTA language you mentioned (for which you found no
reference) in the meeting today might be this part in RFC 2505:
2.5. Refuse mail based on SMTP_Caller address
The MTA SHOULD be able to accept or refuse mail from a specific host
or from a group of hosts. Here we mean the IP.src address or the
FQDN
that its .IN-ADDR.ARPA resolves to (depending on whether you trust
the DNS). This functionality could be implemented at a firewall, but
since the MTA should be able to "defend itself" we recommend it
be able
to as well.
It is RECOMMENDED that the MTA be able to decide based on FQDN
hostnames
(host.domain.example), on wild card domain names (*.domain.example),
on individual IP addresses (10.11.12.13) or on IP addresses with a
prefix length (10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.1.0/24).
It is also RECOMMENDED that these decision rules can be combined to
form a flexible list of accept/refuse/accept/refuse, e.g:
John
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
